I have a 2A question particularly with regard to 'free state' threats

[mikeymikec]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My first question is this - are there any other US laws that actually back up 2A for the purpose of maintaining a free state? Like what a citizen/militia can actually do with their firearms in that respect?

If not, it just seems a tad (though not completely) paradoxical to me. IMO here's the scenario that 2A makes any kind of sense - the US is being invaded by an external aggressor (a state of war has been officially declared and generally agreed upon internally), and things have got so bad that the country would want literally everyone loyal to the cause to pick up a gun and attack the invaders (and so to some extent some 'civilian' laws give way to laws of engagement etc). This scenario in a modern context is still highly problematic, but I'll ignore that for now.

However, without any backup legislation, in every other scenario of maintaining a free state, 2A has no teeth whatsoever. Let's say if someone shot Trump on the spot for inciting the Jan 6th insurrection, or let's say the insurrection got as far as Trump walking triumphantly into Congress to declare that he will continue to be President despite the election result and someone shot him then, that person would very likely be immediately arrested for murder and tried for killing a defenceless person, and the final result would be entirely dependent on a jury's perspective of whether they're going to follow one law (2A) or a conflicting law (e.g. murder) as their basis for a decision.

Another scenario is that a tyrannical government takes over the US's power structure and passes some kind of unanimous resolution repealing 2A, which would be the logical thing to do if they were remotely concerned about a bunch of amateurs versus their trillion dollar military and police forces.

IMO maybe 2A served a purpose once, back when the US was a fledgling nation without a sufficient military force, but once that era passed it seems to me like one is asking a sensible person to ignore the absurdity of a bunch of people with guns managing to overthrow any developed country (regardless of 2A's existence or an equivalent law) without the standard elements that any coup needs to stand any chance of succeeding and say, "let's make sure that the general populace have some kind of pathway to firearms ownership just in case anyway": It's both absurd and pointless.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

My first question is this - are there any other US laws that actually back up 2A for the purpose of maintaining a free state? Like what a citizen/militia can actually do with their firearms in that respect?

I don't think it's explicitly defined because when speaking in the context of maintaining a free state there's really only one thing you can do with a firearm, shoot people and break stuff.

Like we also don't define what people can do with their free speech because they're free to do it. You don't (aren't supposed to) qualify a defined, 'God-given' right.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

and the final result would be entirely dependent on a jury's perspective of whether they're going to follow one law (2A) or a conflicting law (e.g. murder) as their basis for a decision.

True, but in the US at least there's an option for the former, if a jury is willing to decide that (or at least hang and force a retrial). Plenty of other countries where it's illegal to even defend the country as a citizen, at least in peace time.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't think it's explicitly defined because when speaking in the context of maintaining a free state there's really only one thing you can do with a firearm, shoot people and break stuff.

Which are generally illegal

Like we also don't define what people can do with their free speech because they're free to do it. You don't (aren't supposed to) qualify a defined, 'God-given' right.

Which is generally legal with specific exceptions.

True, but in the US at least there's an option for the former, if a jury is willing to decide that (or at least hang and force a retrial). Plenty of other countries where it's illegal to even defend the country as a citizen, at least in peace time.

Another country might have licenced the individual to own a firearm (or not, does it really matter? charging for the gun carrying aspect compared to the murder would be like charging the person for jaywalking on their approach to the imminent murder) and might also have some kind of law against say treason for example.

 

[Greenman]

My first question is this - are there any other US laws that actually back up 2A for the purpose of maintaining a free state? Like what a citizen/militia can actually do with their firearms in that respect?

If not, it just seems a tad (though not completely) paradoxical to me. IMO here's the scenario that 2A makes any kind of sense - the US is being invaded by an external aggressor (a state of war has been officially declared and generally agreed upon internally), and things have got so bad that the country would want literally everyone loyal to the cause to pick up a gun and attack the invaders (and so to some extent some 'civilian' laws give way to laws of engagement etc). This scenario in a modern context is still highly problematic, but I'll ignore that for now.

However, without any backup legislation, in every other scenario of maintaining a free state, 2A has no teeth whatsoever. Let's say if someone shot Trump on the spot for inciting the Jan 6th insurrection, or let's say the insurrection got as far as Trump walking triumphantly into Congress to declare that he will continue to be President despite the election result and someone shot him then, that person would very likely be immediately arrested for murder and tried for killing a defenceless person, and the final result would be entirely dependent on a jury's perspective of whether they're going to follow one law (2A) or a conflicting law (e.g. murder) as their basis for a decision.

Another scenario is that a tyrannical government takes over the US's power structure and passes some kind of unanimous resolution repealing 2A, which would be the logical thing to do if they were remotely concerned about a bunch of amateurs versus their trillion dollar military and police forces.

IMO maybe 2A served a purpose once, back when the US was a fledgling nation without a sufficient military force, but once that era passed it seems to me like one is asking a sensible person to ignore the absurdity of a bunch of people with guns managing to overthrow any developed country (regardless of 2A's existence or an equivalent law) without the standard elements that any coup needs to stand any chance of succeeding and say, "let's make sure that the general populace have some kind of pathway to firearms ownership just in case anyway": It's both absurd and pointless.

Take a look at how the U.S and Russia did in Afghanistan. An armed civilian force is a nightmare for the invaders.
The idea of building a case against the 2nd amendment is pointless, it's a right, and it's the job of the federal government to protect that right. It's etched in stone.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Which are generally illegal


Which is generally legal with specific exceptions.



Another country might have licenced the individual to own a firearm (or not, does it really matter? charging for the gun carrying aspect compared to the murder would be like charging the person for jaywalking on their approach to the imminent murder) and might also have some kind of law against say treason for example.

2A is one of those funny things where the purpose is illegal for every circumstance except where the 2A defined it. If you're actually defending the country, nobody's going to prosecute you for the usage of firearms. If you aren't, it's probably illegal. The whole point of the 2A was to make sure the former was even possible to begin with (it basically wasn't in the England of old where the founders came from).

 

[Pens1566]

There's also references to "militia" elsewhere in the document (and federalist papers) that when taken in context show the modern ammo-sexual interpretation to be a bit off. Unless of course, they've been called up to quell an insurrection or defend from invasion.

 

[ivwshane]

You can see the definition of terms and use cases of the 2nd in the constitution itself. Article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16. Those two clauses define what a militia is, such as who creates the regulations (congress), who trains it (the states), and who can call upon them (the states and the executive), and when they can be called upon (foreign and domestic attacks such as invasion and insurrections).

The 2nd was clearly intended to insure that states had a right to defend themselves as there wasn’t a national standing army and if there was there wasn’t a way they could get to every hot spot quick enough which left the states vulnerable to attacks.

The way the 2nd has been perverted has actually led to the states not being able to defend themselves.

Keeping tyranny at bay by way of guns, in a democracy is antithetical to democracy itself. Since government is created by the majority that means those who would declare it tyrannical would be the minority. A country ruled by a minority without the support of the majority is a form of tyranny.

 

[sandorski]

Every American has an AR15 at the moment of conception. It's how Jesus made them.

 

[bba-tcg]

You can see the definition of terms and use cases of the 2nd in the constitution itself. Article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16. Those two clauses define what a militia is, such as who creates the regulations (congress), who trains it (the states), and who can call upon them (the states and the executive), and when they can be called upon (foreign and domestic attacks such as invasion and insurrections).

The 2nd was clearly intended to insure that states had a right to defend themselves as there wasn’t a national standing army and if there was there wasn’t a way they could get to every hot spot quick enough which left the states vulnerable to attacks.

The way the 2nd has been perverted has actually led to the states not being able to defend themselves.

Keeping tyranny at bay by way of guns, in a democracy is antithetical to democracy itself. Since government is created by the majority that means those who would declare it tyrannical would be the minority. A country ruled by a minority without the support of the majority is a form of tyranny.

The USA is not a democracy.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/the-difference-between-a-constitutional-republic-and-a-democracy/article_e87457a6-f105-593c-9486-2a15413f3bbc.html

 

[brycejones]

The USA is not a democracy.

https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/the-difference-between-a-constitutional-republic-and-a-democracy/article_e87457a6-f105-593c-9486-2a15413f3bbc.html

OH this shit again.

You're that person.

 

[bba-tcg]

OH this shit again.

You're that person.

Lol. Facts suck sometimes, eh?

 

[mikeymikec]

Take a look at how the U.S and Russia did in Afghanistan. An armed civilian force is a nightmare for the invaders.

You're kidding, right?

The reason why Afghanistan was such a problem was because the Taliban runs a billion-dollar drug operation and funds its militaristic efforts through that operation. There's simply no comparison between that and any vaguely normal developed country.

 

[IronWing]

Lol. Facts suck sometimes, eh?

If you had some sort of point to make germane to the topic, you might want to make it.

 

[bba-tcg]

If you had some sort of point to make germane to the topic, you might want to make it.

If you can't find it in the quote and response, I'm not going to bother to point it out to you.

 

[IronWing]

If you can't find it in the quote and response, I'm not going to bother to point it out to you.

So you had no point germane to the topic, okay. I guess we can move on.

 

[Meghan54]

If you had some sort of point to make germane to the topic, you might want to make it.

Don’t you get it? He gotcha, so now anything you might say is irrelevant because he gotcha.

He’s just another basement seeking pizza lover.

 

[mikeymikec]

Keeping tyranny at bay by way of guns, in a democracy is antithetical to democracy itself. Since government is created by the majority that means those who would declare it tyrannical would be the minority. A country ruled by a minority without the support of the majority is a form of tyranny.

Which is another layer of the paradox that I hadn't considered

 

[brycejones]

If you can't find it in the quote and response, I'm not going to bother to point it out to you.

Guns where the shells are put in the clipazine should be totally banned.

 

[brycejones]

Lol. Facts suck sometimes, eh?

No it's like a 5th grade point and basically pointless. I love how that fine article that you linked had this deeply insightful quote in it:

"The Democratic Party has three white presidential candidates, over seventy years of age, competing to be their 2020 presidential nominee.

So much for diversity!"

You gave away the game before it even started.

 

[bba-tcg]

So you had no point germane to the topic, okay. I guess we can move on.

Sure. Do that.

 

[bba-tcg]

No it's like a 5th grade point and basically pointless. I love how that fine article that you linked had this deeply insightful quote in it:

"The Democratic Party has three white presidential candidates, over seventy years of age, competing to be their 2020 presidential nominee.

So much for diversity!"

You gave away the game before it even started.

The only germane part was that which referred to what I claimed. lol.

 

[brycejones]

The only germane part was that which referred to what I claimed. lol.

Uh huh.

 

[Paratus]

Lol. Facts suck sometimes, eh?

Your argument is the same as saying 5 isn’t an integer because it’s a whole number. It’s both because integers encompass whole numbers.

Constitutional republics where the populace elects its leaders is one form of a democracy.

 

[bba-tcg]

Your argument is the same as saying 5 isn’t an integer because it’s a whole number. It’s both because integers encompass whole numbers.

Constitutional republics where the populace elects its leaders is one form of a democracy.

Right.

This would be true if elected leaders were all elected by popular vote. Senators used to be selected by state legislators instead of being elected by popular vote.

But, I digress. I wasn't trying to derail the OP's thread. However, whether it's a 5th grade point or not, the difference appears to be lost on the majority of the American people. If and when the majority actually does rule in this country I think that a lot of people are going to wish it wasn't so. Even some of the majority.